What it decides
- Rule
SPO-SITE-002- Applies to
sharepoint·site- Default severity
- low
- Basis
- convention
On what authority
Microsoft neither requires an individual administrator nor warns about their absence, and group-based administration is the pattern its own group-connected sites use. This is our position: a group in an administrator field is an arrangement, and an arrangement needs somebody who knows they are part of it. An organisation running a staffed rota can reasonably decline this rule, and should record that it did.
This basis carries no external source, and that is the type saying so: a convention is this product's own threshold rather than a vendor's, and attaching a page that does not state it would be worse than admitting authorship.
What it needs to decide
owners.direct_count
Without these facts the rule answers unknown, which is not a pass and is not a failure: it is the rule saying the evidence could not settle the question.
Where the evidence comes from
owners: who administers one site · live-validated
What a pass does not establish
One named administrator who has left the organisation, changed role, or never knew they were named satisfies this rule completely. It reads a field; it cannot read whether the account is active or the person reachable.
- A group with a well-run rota behind it is better administration than a single named person who is on leave. This rule cannot see the rota, and a fail here may be the correct design recorded honestly.
- The count is of direct administrators only. It says nothing about how many people the groups contain, which is a separate question the collector declares it did not expand.
Source
The rule as the Engine holds it, at the revision this page was generated from: 1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233.
Generated from capability-manifest/1.0.0 at1.0.0b6@b4bf9c325233, contract1.0.0b6. Every fact on this page is the Engine's; this site publishes it and does not maintain it.